Should Sheriff Keith Nygren Have Known that Retaliatory Action Based on Deputy Scott Milliman’s Deposition Testimony Was Unconstitutional?

Although Scott Milliman’s deposition was sealed, the Northwest Herald ran parts of it in an article.

That headline pretty much summarizes the final question Federal Judge Frederick Kapala had to decide in whether or not to dismiss former McHenry County Sheriff Deputy Scott Milliman’s wrongful termination suit.

The Judge points out it had to determine “whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established when defendants engaged in their retaliatory actions…

“In this case, it means that Milliman must show that the law was clearly established that a sheriff could not terminate a deputy sheriff for providing true testimony, pursuant to a subpoena and while under oath, that the sheriff and other deputies had engaged in illegal and otherwise corrupt activities.”

Sheriff Keith Nygren and Deputy Scott Milliman during friendlier days.

Sheriff Keith Nygren and Deputy Scott Milliman during friendlier days.

The Judge then cites the 2007 case of Morales v. Jones.

The case found that a police chief could not take retaliatory action against a subordinate for exposing corruption by the chief in a sworn deposition in a civil case.

“Accordingly, based on the facts as alleged in the complaint,” Kapala wrote, “Milliman has met his burden to demonstrate that the law was clearly established at the time of the violation, and therefore this court declines to dismiss Milliman’s complaint based on [a concept called] ‘qualified immunity.'”

Milliman’s wrongful termination suit was filed in December, 2011.

He was fired on August 17, 2011.

To read the entire decision, click here.

= = = = =
Article one is here.

Article two is here.


Comments

Should Sheriff Keith Nygren Have Known that Retaliatory Action Based on Deputy Scott Milliman’s Deposition Testimony Was Unconstitutional? — 9 Comments

  1. You bet he did..
    Employment law 101.

    Scott Milliman is not the first person Nygren has retaliated against.

    Nygren has a long history and an established pattern of retaliation against his own officers and others.

    Hmmmmm……….Psychologists would call it ” Passive Aggressive”……….His way of getting even for whatever reason………Poor Keith the victim………

  2. It is typically pretty easy to at least get a civil charge to trial.

    It cracks me up that more than half of this case was thrown out prior to trial and the local tin foil hat crown not on think it bodes well for the rest of the case, but actually think it was a victory that not the whole case was thrown out prior to trial.

  3. But – it only take 1 charge.

    Lawyers always overshoot throwing everything against the wall.

    They know some will not fly.

    They are happy to get one.

    There are 2 here.

    Another case in Fed court Nygren tried to get thrown out.

    Judge decided that the case “had merit” and will continue.

    Nygren lost lots of cases and had we had to pay out.

    He is the head of the “big expense snake”.

    We will be well rid of him.

    Hang on to your fairy tale but –

    Hold on to your seat!!!

  4. LOL…Because the Judge didn’t throw out the all of the case before it goes to trial that means it has “merit”?

    Holy tin foil hat, batman.

    Most people realize than when most of your case gets thrown out before the trial even starts, that usually is not considered a victory and usually does not bode well for the rest of the case.

  5. Yes, very scary to read an article about some guy suing some other guy to learn most but not all of his lawsuit was thrown out prior to trial.

    Ummmm…why would that make anyone nervous.

    I just thought treating it like some kind of victory was humorous in its extreme over reach.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *